Discover available native AutoCAD operations, including names, JSON parameters, and mutation flags, when no dedicated tool exists. Use this first to find the right command.
List every native AutoCAD operation the plug-in exposes (name, JSON params, mutating flag). Call this first when you need a capability that has no dedicated tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose what the response contains (name, JSON params, mutating flag), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether the catalog is static or session-dependent, or whether there is any cost/limit, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the usage instruction. Every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields the agent needs and the sequencing rule for calling it. Only minor gaps remain (read-only confirmation, catalog scope/stability), which are not critical to calling it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a parameterless catalog call rather than hinting at filters that do not exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (native AutoCAD operations exposed by the plug-in) and even enumerates the payload shape (name, JSON params, mutating flag). It is clearly separable from execution siblings like cad_call, which invoke rather than enumerate operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Call this first when you need a capability that has no dedicated tool" gives an explicit trigger and an implicit exclusion (use the dedicated sibling tools when they exist). It does not name those alternatives individually, but the routing condition is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.